If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

WASHINGTON - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the FBI must publicly reveal much of its interview with former Vice President Dick Cheney during the investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative.
The FBI interviewed Cheney in June 2004 as it was investigating the leak of Valerie Plame's identity after her husband publicly criticized the Bush administration. Both the Bush and Obama administrations said they wanted to keep the interview confidential because future presidents and vice presidents may not cooperate with criminal investigations if they know what they say could become public.
But U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled there was no justification to withhold the entire 67 pages of records documenting the interview since the Plame leak investigation has concluded. He said that limited parts could be withheld to protect national security or personal privacy.

Since we know who leaked what is the purpose? My guess is that for obfuscation, secrecy and the unbridled taking of power by the administrative branch this administration is going to make the former one look like pikers.

"The longer you let a dog go in the wrong direction the more they think they are going in the right direction" Don Remien.

While Dem's were certainly responsible for the massive escalation in Vietnam, and for the mistakes and judgments that killed tens of thousands of our own sons and hundreds of thousands of civilians, the honor of starting that war actually rests with Eisenhower.

Eisenhower rejected the French/UN brokered settlement following Dien Bien Phu that called for elections to unify North and South Vietnam, propped up a Catholic government that was not supported by the people, and introduced US military advisers and weapons before turning the whole mess over to Kennedy (who still should have been smart enough to walk away).

Mr. Yardley, weren't the first US troops sent to Viet Nam in 1950 by President Truman (a Democrat)??

Just wantin' the facts to be straight, I know you are a stickler for that!!

This release will give nothing new. The left will try to come up with a couple of "got yas'" that will have no substance. They will try to make hay anyway to take the focus from their failing congress and the ineffective narcissistic president.

subroc

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Mr. Yardley, weren't the first US troops sent to Viet Nam in 1950 by President Truman (a Democrat)??

Just wantin' the facts to be straight, I know you are a stickler for that!!

The conflict in Vietnam is basically split between the pre-1954 efforts which were directed at helping France to preserve its colonial ownership of Vietnam, and the post 1954 period when France agreed to surrender all claims on Vietnam. The Battle of Dien Bien Phu was the final effort by France to preserve its imperial position. Following its defeat, France entered into negotiations resulting in the Geneva Accords which temporarily partitioned Vietnam into two sectors. Under the terms of the agreement, elections in 1956 would select the government to lead a unified country. The US (Eisenhower) did not sign the agreement, which was signed by France, Vietnam, England, and Canada, among others. It did ackowledge the agreement and stated its agreement that the country would be united.

However, following French withdrawal, and with the deadline for elections approaching, the US threw its support, both covertly and openly behind the transitional government in the south. In 1955, Eisenhower committed US forces to train the South Vietnamese government. This act, on November 1, 1955, is generally seen as the beginning of the Vietnam War as is the date following which the US dead were listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

The conflict in Vietnam is basically split between the pre-1954 efforts which were directed at helping France to preserve its colonial ownership of Vietnam, and the post 1954 period when France agreed to surrender all claims on Vietnam. The Battle of Dien Bien Phu was the final effort by France to preserve its imperial position. Following its defeat, France entered into negotiations resulting in the Geneva Accords which temporarily partitioned Vietnam into two sectors. Under the terms of the agreement, elections in 1956 would select the government to lead a unified country. The US (Eisenhower) did not sign the agreement, which was signed by France, Vietnam, England, and Canada, among others. It did ackowledge the agreement and stated its agreement that the country would be united.

However, following French withdrawal, and with the deadline for elections approaching, the US threw its support, both covertly and openly behind the transitional government in the south. In 1955, Eisenhower committed US forces to train the South Vietnamese government. This act, on November 1, 1955, is generally seen as the beginning of the Vietnam War as is the date following which the US dead were listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Yeah, yeah, but my question is this:
Didn't Harry Truman send the first US troops to Viet Nam in 1950??

BTW--Rhetorical question.
(that means I already know the answer, and so does Mr. Yardley)

Yeah, yeah, but my question is this:
Didn't Harry Truman send the first US troops to Viet Nam in 1950??

BTW--Rhetorical question.
(that means I already know the answer, and so does Mr. Yardley)

How is that relevant to what President started our involvement in what became the Vietnam War. We sent military ships to Japan in the 19th century. Does that mean that we started World War II and that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was simply a response? What Truman did was actually done as part of the Korean War and was strictly limited to support for the French efforts to retain control of a colony. The decision to undermine the Geneva Accord and prevent elections from being held in Vietnam was a decision made by President Eisenhower because of his belief that any election would give power over all of Vietnam to the government in the the north. and that Indochina and the rest of Asia might then fall to Communism. This was not a universal opinion and was opposed by our closest allies (France, England, Canada), all of whom had signed the Geneva Accord. Eisenhower laid the foundation for the Vietnam War. However, it took Kennedy and Johnson to make the commitments that turned a stupid decision into a disastrous one. And with each commitment made, both Kennedy and Johnson relied on military commanders who said that if we only did a little bit more, we could win n short order. Maybe it is time for us to learn and admit that there is no way to impose a new form of government on another country without becoming involved in an expensive and uncertain quagmire. We may still elect to do that. But we should only do it when we have no choice, and never because we want to prove we have cojones.

How is that relevant to what President started our involvement in what became the Vietnam War. We sent military ships to Japan in the 19th century. Does that mean that we started World War II and that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was simply a response? What Truman did was actually done as part of the Korean War and was strictly limited to support for the French efforts to retain control of a colony. The decision to undermine the Geneva Accord and prevent elections from being held in Vietnam was a decision made by President Eisenhower because of his belief that any election would give power over all of Vietnam to the government in the the north. and that Indochina and the rest of Asia might then fall to Communism. This was not a universal opinion and was opposed by our closest allies (France, England, Canada), all of whom had signed the Geneva Accord. Eisenhower laid the foundation for the Vietnam War. However, it took Kennedy and Johnson to make the commitments that turned a stupid decision into a disastrous one. And with each commitment made, both Kennedy and Johnson relied on military commanders who said that if we only did a little bit more, we could win n short order. Maybe it is time for us to learn and admit that there is no way to impose a new form of government on another country without becoming involved in an expensive and uncertain quagmire. We may still elect to do that. But we should only do it when we have no choice, and never because we want to prove we have cojones.

Here is how it is relevant:

Your facts are incorrect in your sanctomonious effort to discredit a Republican for being the one to get the USA involved in Viet Nam.
That is a falsehood.
Harry S. Truman, a DEMOCRAT got us involved in the 10,000 day war.
You know that is the truth.
To say anything else is disingenuous on your part.

You are not the sole posseser of the truth.
Just because you type multi paragraphs doesn't mean you are correct.

Anyone can look it up and see the facts.

In fact, why don't you show us some evidence that Eisenhower sent the first US troops to Viet Nam?
And I will show my evidence it was Truman!!

How is that relevant to what President started our involvement in what became the Vietnam War. We sent military ships to Japan in the 19th century. Does that mean that we started World War II and that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was simply a response? What Truman did was actually done as part of the Korean War and was strictly limited to support for the French efforts to retain control of a colony. The decision to undermine the Geneva Accord and prevent elections from being held in Vietnam was a decision made by President Eisenhower because of his belief that any election would give power over all of Vietnam to the government in the the north. and that Indochina and the rest of Asia might then fall to Communism. This was not a universal opinion and was opposed by our closest allies (France, England, Canada), all of whom had signed the Geneva Accord. Eisenhower laid the foundation for the Vietnam War. However, it took Kennedy and Johnson to make the commitments that turned a stupid decision into a disastrous one. And with each commitment made, both Kennedy and Johnson relied on military commanders who said that if we only did a little bit more, we could win n short order. Maybe it is time for us to learn and admit that there is no way to impose a new form of government on another country without becoming involved in an expensive and uncertain quagmire. We may still elect to do that. But we should only do it when we have no choice, and never because we want to prove we have cojones.

In what situation would we have no choice? Which war was engaged in for the sole purpose of proving we have cojones? Never mind we all know which one you believe we engaged in for that purpose.

"The longer you let a dog go in the wrong direction the more they think they are going in the right direction" Don Remien.

Mr. Yardley, weren't the first US troops sent to Viet Nam in 1950 by President Truman (a Democrat)??

Just wantin' the facts to be straight, I know you are a stickler for that!!

. If one could think about direct combat engagement then it would be November 1, 1955 -- The U.S. redesignates MAAG, Indochina, as MAAG, Vietnam to specify its new direct combat advisory role with the South Vietnamese Army. The U.S. essentially took over the advisory role from the French, who were leaving Vietnam after their defeat at Diem Bien Phu in 1954. The Department of Defense views this date as the earliest qualifying date for inclusion on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. In fact this allows US military personnel to use live weapon in Vietnam aka 'to fight'!